click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121129
20121207
STATION
CSPAN 43
LANGUAGE
English 43
Search Results 0 to 42 of about 43 (some duplicates have been removed)
:00 on c-span. >> former congressional leaders discuss what washington learned from the 1990 deficit agreement that eventually helped frame the federal budget into surplus. speakers include tom fully. this is just under three hours of. >> ok. welcome. i am the director of public administration program. i want to welcome you to the session, which we are calling looking back to move a forward. this is co-sponsored by george mason university and the bipartisan policy center. it is our pleasure to put this on and to recognize with all the frenzy about the fiscal cliff that we have a history. some of the history is successful in resolving deep seated hard choices. that is will we will look back and talk about today and see whether we can learn any lessons from the experience. we will go over the detailed program in a few minutes. i want to introduce our keynote speaker tom davis. he has covered many basis. he was the county executive of fairfax county. he was the representative to congress and became a chair and it did many important hearings and remains very active as a speaker and a pol
on the unfunded obligations. we want to stop the spending problem so we can fix the deficit. we want to get people back to work, which is why again, we take the position that raising tax rates is absolutely not something that helps get people back to work. >> what was the importance of that, rather than just going ahead with visas that you agree are very, very important? >> well, again, what we believe is this was the first step forward in terms of trying to address the need for modernization in our visa laws. and we have a system of lottery that, frankly, i think, is properly replaced with a system that rewards those who want to come here to help create jobs and help get our economy back on track. so it's very much, i think, in sync with our priority of helping americans get back to work, helping create more jobs for more americans. >> democrats have now said after your response towards the thee house's proposal that ball is now in your court, that the onus is on you to put forth a proposal. is the ball in the republicans' court now? >> well, we remain committed at all -- at all instances to enga
the long term effects of our deficit, which are directly tied to health care -- the work that has been done in the congress as it relates to constructing and exchange that will take place in 2014 and go into effect, and the tools that we provided a initially on a concept that by its very nature was one designed by republicans, that there is ample room for us to tackle the unbelievable rise in cost of health care to 17% of our gross domestic product by focusing on dropping those costs. most recently the president of aetna said very clearly -- not only if we drop those costs would we make health care more affordable, we would also deal with balancing our national debt. so these are all very constructive areas that we all should agree to. that the american public wants us to pursue. we remain optimistic because of the way the president has gone out there and is selling this concept, not only in white house public. i commend leader boehner, speaker boehner, setting the appropriate tone in the conference. we know there are differences in both the caucus and the conference, but it is the common t
political adviser indicated that medicare and medicaid are the main drivers of our deficit. i know we have seen this morning also several editorial writers indicate the same, that it is important that we put these drivers of the deficit on the table and include them as part of any agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. as the speaker said, we have done our part. we have put revenues on the table, something we did not do two years ago during the debt ceiling negotiation. we still believe that it is most important for us to address the economic situation in this country where so many people are out of work. that is why we take the position and believe strongly that increase in marginal rates i, income-tax rates, is not the way to produce growth and put people back to work. but we have not seen any good faith effort on the part of its administration to talk about the real problem that we're trying to fix. i am told mr. bowles, some of us will meet with him later today, said earlier this morning there has been no serious discussion by the white house on entitlements, on medicare and medicaid. th
street greed in the form of a $6 trillion housing bubble. this brought large budget deficits. some at the center of the housing crash are pushing to deep cuts to social programs to cure the budget deficit. the c.e.o. of goldman sachs, who received a $10 billion direct bailout at below market interest rates have preached about decreasing social security benefits and increasing the retirement age. main street americans have lost more than 40% of their wealth from 2007 to 2010. nearly one in six u.s. residents is officially poor, the highest rate in 50 years. 22% of american children live in poverty. we're facing an economic situation that resembles the years leading up to the great depression. now, this prevailing budget plan calls for deep cuts, environmental protection, social security, medicare, medicaid. well, corporations and the top 1% get tax cuts of nearly $3 trillion over the next decade. this is not how you protect a democracy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask unanimous
republican members of the house and the senate speak out on the need or a deficit approach that includes raising taxes on wealthy individuals and to moving right away to ensure that 98% of families do not race a tax increase. we need to look -- do not face a tax increase. we need to look at history. what we saw in the 1990s and 2000s, there was no relationship between lower marginal tax rates for the wealthiest among us an economic growth. first during the clinton administration, the top marginal tax rate was raised on the wealthiest individuals and the economy grew at its fastest rate in a generation. it added more than 22 million jobs. during the following eight years, the top marginal rate dax tax rate was lower, but economy never regained its strength from the reviews decade. middle-class families are vulnerable when the recession began at the end of 2007. i hope this hearing is helpful not just in this hearing, but across this country to people who are watching and waiting for congress to act. i will say more at the end about some of our members who are leaving. it is -- it has been
capitol hill. then eric cantor response of the lighthouse deficit reduction package. later, nancy pelosi addresses the fiscal cliff and middle- class tax cuts. president obama talked about the so-called fiscal cliff and his proposal to end of the bush tax cuts on those earning more than two and a $50,000. ed -- more than $250,000. ["hail to the chief" plays] please have a seat. have a seat. relax for a second. it is good to see all of you. hello. it is good to be back in pennsylvania. it is good to be right here. i want to thank michael, robert, and the investor, joel glickman for hosting me today and giving me a great tour. stand up so everybody can see you, guys. [cheers and applause] there you go. we have a couple of outstanding members of congress here. [cheers and applause] now, i just finished getting a tour of the workshop. i have to say it makes me wish that joel invented this stuff sooner when i was a kid. back then, you couldn't build a roller coaster out of your erector set. i got a chance to meet some of the folks who have been working around the clock to keep up with the chr
. they were serious about reducing the deficit and the need to get on with it and had some sense of urgency. they were serious about raising revenue from higher income taxpayers, and that includes raising rates, with some flexibility there. they were serious about reducing spending and i would say to you, you have written a lot about the tax side of the equation. we need to read more about the spending side of the equation. they are equally important if we are going to get a balanced plan. they are serious about reducing spending -- that would include reducing spending on health care entitlements. they are serious about protecting the middle class -- you can really feel the president's passion on that. they were serious about restoring confidence in the short and long term so our economy can grow and create jobs. i think the president has always been for a balanced approach come as alan and i have. our message to the president and the congress from day one has been the same -- that is the problem is real, the solutions are painful, and there is not going to be an easy way out of it. the onl
the president called his deficit reduction commission to give the president and -- an idea what we could do to get our fiscal house in order. i want to show in you this chart, mr. speaker, it's the chronic deficits we have had in this country, goes back to 1970. all this red ink represents the inflation adjusted, 2012 dollars, comparing apples to apples across this chart, the deficit that is we have had in this country, and you see going back to 197 o 0, mr. speaker, which happens to be the year of my birth, we have run a deficit every single year from 199 . you remember 1998 we had newt gingrich leading the first republican u.s. house of representatives in modern times. bill clinton in the white house. they came together to solve some big problems. welfare reform, health insurance reform. folks forget about health insurance reform. we did away with pre-existing conditions. did away with all of the impediments in the large group markets, what they call the plans, had great success in that area, and finally got back into some positive territory. to be truthful, this assumes that all the fede
to make sure that the wealthiest in this country help pay down this large deficit. >> will the democrats just wait? >> we have a lot of discussions going on in the senate and the various places. we know what the parameters are and the speaker knows what the parameters are. the president is ready, willing, and able to sit down and seriously negotiate with us but they have to be willing to come to the table with specifics like he is doing. >> we have done something. if you look at either proposal, they want every tax rate to go up. we all agree that group of rates should not go up. we just disagree on the top 2%. let's go where we agree which would be the current rates and make sure the folks in the middle class don't have an increase. we all agree on that. but they want more and more. we are saying that you have to start somewhere. they don't want to use the procedure to allow their own people to vote on it. they are holding the american people, the middle-class hostage for small issues they want to fight on and play the press war. we agree on these rates to be lower. we just disagree on
this morning. you made a comment that you did not believe anybody was interested in solving this deficit problem. that about knocked me out of my chair. i need you to explain to me and the rest of the people watching why you said that anthony g. to -- and i need you to expound on that. i will take my answer off the air. please ask mr. reid to not to be such an obstructionist and sit down and listen. have a great day. guest: imitate a few days for that message out to get through from me. there's a lot of concern about budget deficits. in the period after the downturn, budget deficits for in a range of 10% of the entire gdp, the entire economic output of the u.s. they have come down a little bit. economists think to be sustainable, budget deficits have to be in the range of 3% of economic output or a lower. the focus of this effort to reduce deficits now is on getting them, in the federal budget deficit to the range of 3% or so. that is what i mean when i say policymakers are not trying to get rid of the budget deficits. given the economic weakness, a little bit of deficit spending is pro
the incentives. we do so much money that you can reduce the deficit significantly, lower the rate, still have the group you are asking to pay more, pay more if you're willing to broaden the base. the point i would make is that as difficult as it is, we should use this opportunity to think about what a most sensible tax system is, and one of the pieces we have made progress on, which will have real revenues as a budget deal, and that along with spending and economists is critically important. no matter how we raise or how much we raise the revenues, a small or big enough, we should strive to raise that in the most efficient way possible, and that is including tax reform as part of this overall deal is a critical part of growth. and shouldn't be lost in the mix. >> david, do you want to get in? >> i want to echo a number of the comments, because the way i describe it is if we had actually been trying to develop an incomprehensible, confusing, and globally uncompetitive system which could not have done -- system we could not have done a better job than what we got. there is a something to the pr
with the president and other ceo's to discuss the impending crisis. we even published their own study on the deficit, copies of which are available here today. we look forward to continuing this conversation, keeping the dialogue on going for the next month is critical if we're going to solve this problem -- and we think our panel will be very enlightening in terms of what the issues are. so, al, with that i will turn it over to you and the panel. we look forward to reproductive hour. thank you very much. >> can everybody hear? i welcome you all to bgov -- if you do not know as much about it as you want, i invite you to stay, because it really is a fabulous place. we do have an all-star panel. i will start with my left, which is where bob corker says i always start. tim pawlenty, former governor of minnesota. i wrote that i thought that if he could get the nomination he would have been the strongest republican presidential candidate. i was absolutely right -- we just could not figure out how to get there from here. tim is now the head of the financial services round table, a job he took just about a
, we have seen record deficits and a record debt accumulate, and yet he keeps demanding that we raise taxes to pay for more spending. this will only hurt our economy. ernst and young has done an analysis of the president's proposal and said it will cost several hundreds thousands of jobs. there is a better way and the speaker has laid it out. it is an approach that calls for tax reform by reforming the tax code and passing responsible spending cuts in order to get our fiscal house in order. that's what america wants. this is our opportunity to do the big things. this is our moment to provide that leadership that america desperately wants and we stand here ready to take the action necessary. >> the american people are hurting right now and now is the moment where we need to step up to the plate and solve the problem. i don't know how any of us can look our kids and grandkids in the eye and explain to them that we aren't willing to pay for the things we are enjoying today but just going to send them the bill. that's why republicans have the proposal on the table that fixes the problem,
repeatedly said and our caucus again just confirmed that job creation equals deficit reduction, and we must put the country back to work. we have proposals that are on the floor. we still believe that even with the -- what little time remains and what little time remains when we're actually working, this is still possible. this is still doable. this is not a democrat or republican issue. republicans believe that america needs to go back to work. it's just a matter of having the will to do it, the programs are out there. compromise can be made around the streamlining of regulations to make sure that we are putting people back to work. if chris christy and barack obama can get -- chris cristie and barack obama can get together on that, and i know what's transpired and how the impact of our infrastructure has taken place along the eastern seaboard, it's something we ought to be able to rally around immediately. and of course everyone, everyone deserves a $250,000 tax break. we all agree on that. so why not just simply adopt it and then come back and we'll have time to address the issues as it
. it is also the excesses. look at the road we are on. a trillion dollar deficit every year. a debt crisis on the horizon. debt on this scale is destructive on so many ways. one of them is that it draws resources away from private charity. even worse is the prospect of a debt crisis, which will, unless we do something very soon. when government finances collapsed, it is the most vulnerable who are the victims, which we are seeing in europe. many feel they have nowhere to turn. we must never let that happen here. and election has come and gone. the people have made their choice. policy-makers still have a duty to choose between ideas that work and those that do not. when one economic policy after another has failed our working families, it is no answer to expressed compassion for them or create government programs that offer promise but do not create reforms. we must come together to advance new strategies for the the people out of poverty. let's go with what works. looking around this room at the men and women who are carrying legacy, i know we are answering the call. this cause is right.
.o.p. forget tax rates in talks on the deficit, let's look at the spending. the speaker's swift rejection of an idea floated by representative tom cole of oklahoma, a respected party strategist and former chair of the house g.o.p. campaign committee came as the republicans voiced increasing concerns over the debate of the so-called fiscal cliff. boehner said it's time for them to get serious about the spending problem that our country has. republicans complain that for all the talk of coming up with a balanced budget plan, he has made little effort to identify specific proposals beyond increasing taxes on the wealthy. "the white house has not produced any of the balance in the president's described balance proposal that peter roscoe, the house g.o.p.'s deputy whip. boehner and the other house republican leaders will meet on thursday with treasury sec tir tim geitner and the white house's chief congressional li aison to discuss the fiscal cliff. that's the hill newspaper. here's politico this morning, inside the talk, fiscal cliff deal emerging is what some write this morning. and that's f
to create jobs, to reduce the deficit, and again have fairness. this is the heart of the 3459er -- matter that is holding us here. as the public watches what is this about? this is about the $250,000 line that the president said in the campaign that he would honor and that that legislation today brings to bear. i urge my colleagues out of 435 members of the house, we only need a couple dozen republicans to sign the discharge petition. each one of them holds the key to a $2,000 tax cut for the middle class. either sign the petition, urge the speaker to bring the bill to the floor, or explain to your constituents why you do not want them to have this $2,000 tax break if they are -- for 100% of the american people. please sign the discharge petition. let's get this done this week. we could bring this bill up under unanimous consent. the message would be clear to the american people. we heard you in the campaign. be fair. do something that works. work togetha >> today, the house democratic caucus chairman charge republicans to protect the middle class from a tax increase. they spoke to report
. not a driver of the deficit but, hey, cut that. one more specific. preserve the bush-era tax rates for income over $250,000. it's not a tax increase for everybody who earns over $250,000. it's only the income over $250,000 that would get additional taxes if the bush-era rates went away and the president's proposal was passed. but, no, they want to preserve -- totally preserve tax cuts for income over $250,000. they want to preserve the reduced capital gains rate and dividends rate which principally who ben pets, who else, millionaires and billionaires. now -- benefits, who else, millionaires and billionaires. they did have the jay wellington wimpy plan. you remember him? popeye. i will pay you for a hamburger today. unspecified tax loopholes. we will lower the tax rates for the people on the top. but they'll raise over $800 billion. the ability to deduct the interest on their home mortgage, do they want to take that away? probably. got to come from something pretty big. they don't want to touch the billionaire, millionaire job creator class. now, you know, that's a pretty interesting position
intervention to curb the deficit. it has been astronomical. then i heard barack obama say the way we are going to do it is by making more cuts in various ways. he was saying by making more cuts and the only people it is going to hurt is the working class and somewhat of the middle-class. he should mention the fact that out of control spending has a lot to do with the credit card crunch. specifically because of the middle-class. i think if we get those tax cuts centered with them, i do not think the poll would be affected. you have these small companies that are developing, and he is saying have those small companies hire more people and get them involved, but come consumer expenditures. that is partially i think a solution. host: you are calling on the republican line and you think hillary clinton would make a good candidate. would you vote for her in 2016? caller: i think she would be a very vital aspect to the political process. as far as her running for president, 2016 -- god knows what may happen from this point to that point. as far as her role as a democrat, i think by working along with
of payments deficit remains petroleum, and to increase our g.d.p. by the maximization of these activities in the united states rather than exporting our dollars abroad. so thank you very much and i think we can sit down now or -- yeah. >> thank you. give us a moment to take our seats. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, our panel discussion is about to begin, featuring senator lamar alexander, senator roy blunt, and our moderator, christine romans. >> can you hear me now? there we go. good morning, rn. -- all right. so i'm a lazy moderator. i've warned everyone. we want to get the ball rolling and talk about this report, talk about the future of energy in this country, and the future of transportation and america's national security with regards to energy. but i want to make sure that all of you know to please jump in. i don't want to ask a question and then ask another question. i want this to be a discussion, and i'll steer it. everyone agree? do we all agree? wonderful. let me start first with fred. nice to see you again. >> good to see you. >> you've heard the findings of the report,
the gramm-rudman deficit law, which was so important at the time. those issues remain important today. he did not aspire to be a politician, and he did not have to like one. he cared deeply. [laughter] we know he cared deeply about our country and devoted himself because he had a calling to shape and preserve our country's future. he believed deeply in the rule of law and used the force of his intellect to defend it. one of the things that is most telling about warren rudman is the statement that represents what he was all about. he once said -- i consider myself an american first and a republican second. fiercely independent, and totally committed to the common good, he had the courage of his convictions and stood for what he believed in. in bidding farewell to the senate in 1992, he expressed gratitude for the opportunity to serve in the senate with talented colleagues. many are here today to speak about their experiences with him. he also expressed his hope for the future of the senate, saying it is a very special place with very special people. i hope in the coming years that the inst
if you'd done been the biggest tax loopholes. they don't come close to fulfilling the deficit. how significant are these deductions when we look at their role in the big picture of solving the fiscal clef? >> they can be important, the goal is not to get rid of the budget deficit. i don't think anybody has a realistic hope of getting rid of the budget deficit and a lot of people don't want to get rid of the budget deficit. certainly, opinions differ. they can be a managing part of the deficit. >> do they play a role in negotiations and talks? there is a group advocating for every one of these deductions that people are used to getting. could they end up on the chopping block? >> definitely. >> there is also a link to see more at our website for the gop proposal. we are going live to the house. a requirement that financial restitution set of privacy notices. for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 5817. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. caller: h.r. 5817, to provide an exception to the annu
, reduce the deficit, and begin to show leadership in various areas of new technology that demonstrated here to the rest of the world. kohl will always be there. -- coal is always going to be there. there's lots of work there. all the sales will help, i think, of leverage our capability and give us more options. >> let me bring you in. 92% of american transportation is run on petroleum. with this new landscape for energy production of, how are we doing on diversifying different kinds of things that are running our transportation? >> so far, it is going slow. something that was deeply focused on was something note senator alexander said earlier. we need to find more and use less. i think you're asking about the use less part. the extension of the changing fuel efficiency standards was one thing, but we believe fervently in the need to diversify away from using petroleum for transportation and given that it represents 70% of our use of petroleum to begin with. with the change in technology and the access to so much homegrown natural gas, we can use that and we can also use the development
house deficit reduction package. later, nancy pelosi addresses the fiscal cliff and middle- class tax cuts. tomorrow on ", washington "" robert -- "washington journal," robert van order on the mortgage loan forgiveness. adult'eman on being an with autism. plus, your emails, phone calls, and tweets. >> c-span, created by cable companies and venture 1979, brought to you as a public service by >> president obama talked about the so-called fiscal cliff and his proposal to end the bush era tax cuts. he spoke at a manufacturing facility in hatfield, pennsylvania, for about 25 minutes. >> thank you! [cheers and applause] >> well, good morning, everybody. everybody, please have a seat, have a seat. relax for a second. it is good to see all of you. hello, hatfield! it is good to be back in pennsylvania and it is good to be right here at connects. i want to thank michael airington and the inventor of connects, joel glickman, for hosting me today. where'd they go? stand up so everybody can see you guys. there you go! i just noticed, we got a couple of outstanding members of congress here. chaka
could not print money, we would be in a very bad way. i just think we need to get this deficit under control. those two wars that we have not paid for need to be paid for. you know, it has to be done. if going off the fiscal cliff means that it will be done, so be it. host: other groups are weighing in on these fiscal cliff talks. here is "the new york times" -- in the "financial times" this morning -- roger altman writing today in "the financial times." president obama will be meeting with several governors today at the white house to talk about the fiscal cliff. they will be meeting this morning around 10:00 a.m. eastern time, and then the governors are slated to hold a news conference at around 11:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website for more details. washington insiders tackle fiscal cliff policy solutions. the group will hold a roundtable discussion today on the importance of reform to address the nation's debt and deficit spending this event takes place this morning around 8:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website for all our coverage of the fiscal cliff talks. we have a web
't really think that social security has really ever been a cause of the deficit. there's more funds coming in than there is funds being sent out in checks. and this whole security tax is a separate tax from the federal tax. and -- host: so this proposal includes the extension of the payroll tax cut. what do you think of that proposal? >> i think that's fine. i think extending the payroll tax is probably something we're going to have to look at doing. but when they start talking about using social security money, that botters me, because social security is never needed -- has never needed federal dollars before to fund the program. host: ok. off of twitter this is reding who says they have not offered a deficit reduction plan. republican big pledges tax reform and closing unspecified tax loopholes. arthur, good morning. go ahead. what do you think about the proposedal? caller: i think the proposal is kind of ludacris. but i really think that the republicans should back away. they should take their people, stand back and let the democrats have their way and let them do what they want to do
. it is social deficits, executive function issues -- they can be put to work. if i may backtrack, because again we have heard about prevalence rates and the confusion of where these numbers come from. not once have i heard today the fact that the dsm iv, which constructs the criteria of who deserves a diagnosis, not once has anybody said that one of the reasons for expanding diagnosis was the expanding criteria to what needs a diagnosis. first off, the inclusion of asperger's, in 1994 opened up the book to a plethora of people including myself who never before would have qualified for an autism spectrum disorder, but even for traditional audits and the definition was changed. i may get these numbers wrong, but in the old book it was six mandatory criteria for a diagnosis of autism. if you got five but not six, back in those days it was mental retardation. now i believe it is eight optional out of a field of 16 possible criteria. that blows those numbers out of the water. >> i see my time is up. >> do you want to be recognized for a minute? mr. blaxill has a quick comment to be made? >> on the s
executives today in washington. he talked about negotiations with congressional republicans on deficit reduction and the so-called fiscal cliff. >> the holdup right now is that speaker boehner took a position -- i think the day after the campaign -- that said we're willing to bring in revenue, but we aren't willing to increase rates. and i just explained to you why we don't think that works. we're not trying to -- we're not insisting on rates just out of spite or any kind of partisan bickering. but rather because we need to raise a certain amount of revenue. now we have seen some movement over the last several days among some republicans. i think there's a recognition that maybe they can accept some rate increases as long as it's combined with serious entitlement reform and additional spending cuts. and if we can get the leadership on the republican side to take that framework, to acknowledge that reality. then the numbers actually aren't that far apart. another way of putting this is, we can probably solve this in about a week. it's not that tough. but we need that breakthrough that s
, and their schools. i want to do this by bringing down our deficits in a balanced and responsible way. [applause] >> on this last point, you probably heard a lot of talk in washington and in the media about the deadlines that we're facing on jobs and taxes and investments. this is not some run-of-the-mill debate. this isn't about which political party can come out on top in negotiations. we've got important decisions to make that are going to have a real impact on businesses and families all across the country. our ultimate goal, our long-term goal is to get our long-term deficit under control in a way that is balanced and is fair. that would be good for businesses, for our economy, for future generations. and i believe both parties can and will work together in the coming weeks to get that done. we know how that gets done. we're going to have to raise a little more revenue. we've got to cut out spending we don't need, building on the trillion dollars of spending cuts we've already made. and if we combine those two things, we can create a path where america's paying its bills while still being a
prosperity for america, helps reduce our budget deficit, is humane, is enforceable, no one said it would be easy but that's what the people send us hoar to do and regardless of the outcome of this particular bill, we are simply taking another week in avoiding addressing the real issues of the imdepration crisis in this country. i encourage my colleagues to vote against the rule which was a closed process and doesn't allow for consideration of even noncontroversial amendments such as my ev-5 amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, and to my good friend from colorado, we agree on so many issues. particularly as it relates to immigration reform. we agree. i think this is the first step in regards to where we need to go. you have sold a very persuasive argument in regards to why it is so important so important that we have a stem vee is program. -- visa program. while it's important to us to keep that brainpower we educated in the united states, keep them here in this country
spending her hard-earned tax dollars like water, running trillion-dollar deficits year after year. she's angry and she has every right to be angry. so what are we going to do about it? lately we've heard a lot of talk about raising revenues, but not nearly enough talk about bringing the federal government down to the right size, about matching spending to the resources we have, about balancing the federal budget. oh, we hear about a balanced approach, but that's just a way of saying we need to increase taxes. actually, we don't need to increase taxes. the best thing we could do would be to not increase taxes. the best thing we can do is to raise revenues by making our economy as healthy and strong as it can be. that means we need to help our businesses grow and hire. that's become way too hard to do in the past couple of years. a businessman in duchess county, new york, said he's going to have to limit the number of employees he has to less than 50 so he won't be subject to penalties under the 2010 health law. so right now the federal government is keeping him from offering jobs. that
of any significant agreement will reduce our deficit. mr. bowles himself said yesterday there has been no serious discussion so far. there is a real danger of going off the fiscal cliff. going off the fiscal cliff will hurt our economy. it will cost american jobs. republicans have taken action to avert the fiscal cliff by passing legislation to stop all the tax hikes, to replace the sequester, and pave the way for tax reform and entitlement reform. we are the only ones with a balanced plan to protect the economy, protect american jobs, and protect the middle class from the fiscal cliff. without spending cuts and entitlement reform, it will be impossible to address our country's debt crisis and get our economy going again and to create jobs. right now all eyes are on the white house. the country does not need a victory lap. it needs leadership. it is time for the president and congressional democrats to tell the american people what spending cuts they're willing to make. with that, i will take a few questions. [indiscernible] >> it has been very clear over the last year and a half. i ha
. guest: this is a time when people in congress are talking more seriously about reducing the deficit, getting rid of fraud as the caller was talking about. than many times in the past. now, whether they can follow through on that goal is a question. but i would sort of advise the caller to keep paying attention and see whether maybe something that he would like comes out of this. host: you've been write being taxes for five years. you've been in washington now for five years, is that -- ok. so you've heard discussions about deficit reduction over the years and tax policy. guest: yeah. host: we always seem to focus on the out years. when it comes to a lot of these issues. do the out years ever come about or does policy get changed before any real cuts are made? guest: so that they are pushing -- they're delaying the pain is what you're saying and they'll come back and -- yeah. that has occurred, the very famous one is the doc fix. i'm sure you're familiar with. they back in the 1990's reduced payments to doctors through medicare and then decided that wasn't such a good idea after doct
did not say al qaeda, iran, north korea, what he said was the deficit and the state of american society. i think that is exactly right. you can look at questions of the budget, and for structure, an immigration policy but above all this education policy. this is the future. we're not talking about our physical infrastructure. we are talking about our human infrastructure. joel has dedicated his recent phase of his creer to -- career to this. when he is not discovering the best restaurants in brooklyn, he is focused on improving the lot of young people in this country. >> it is supposed to be the other way around. >> i will tell you how kind and dedicated he has been to this issue. i called condie up and said i want you to do something for me and with me. she said i'm too busy, did not start. i said ok. i said before the end of this conversation, you will agree to what i asked you. she said no way. i said we at the council on foreign relations was spend time working on things like china and mexico and traditional foreign- policy issues, we have moved our agenda and are focused on
in the u.s. senate to pass important legislation, including the grand rudman deficit law. those issues remain important today. he did not aspire to be a politician. he did not have to like one. he cared deeply. we know he cared deeply about our country and devoted himself because he had a calling to shape and preserve our country's future. he believed deeply in the rule of law and used the force of his intellect to defend it. one of the things that is most telling about warren rudman is the statement that represents what he was all about. he once said -- i consider myself an american first and a republican second, fiercely independent, and totally committed to the common good. he had the carriage of his convictions and stood for what he believed in. in bidding farewell to to the senate in 1992, he expressed gratitude for the opportunity to serve in the senate which talented colleagues. many are here today to speak about their experiences with him. he expressed his hopes for the future of the senate, saying it is a special place with special people. i hope in the coming years that the i
our deficit situation as the economy grows. without raising any taxes. but the fact of the matter is i know the gentleman has historically not felt tax cuts should be paid for either by reducing it or offsetting. the president doesn't agree with the $800 billion because he doesn't think the math works. i share the president's view. the math doesn't work. the most useful effort will be if we all agree on the onive -- objective, whether it's $4 trillion, whether it's 70% debt to g.d.p. ratio which most economists or a little less than that is sustainable or is on a sustainable path. if we all agree with the objective and then, mr. majority leader, simply make the math work to get there on a way that we could agree on, i think america would be advantaged, the economy would be advantaged and we'd see a renaissance of job creation in this country as we did in the 2000's. and i'll be glad to yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i accept the gentleman's good intentions. i know he doesn't think that we ought to be imposing additional obligations on the american people to pay more of their money int
a significant trade deficit. the value of their oil imports are greater than their exports to iran. this provision should lock up a substantial portion of iran's earnings from its oil sales in each of these countries. as for the financial executions will longer be able to transfer iran's oil earnings beyond their countries borders without fear of losing their access to the u.s. financial system, iran will be severely limited in its ability to transfer funds across jurisdictions. oil revenues will largely be shackled with a given country, and only usable to purchase goods from that country. as you might imagine, we have been hitting the road, making sure that our partners in the international financial community understand the significance of this provision. perhaps the greatest endorsement of our efforts has come from the iranian president himself. speaking in october, ahmadinejad said, "the enemy has announced it has introduced sanctions on the purchase of iran from iraq. even worse, it has imposed banking sanctions, meaning of some oil is sold, its revenues are not transferable t
behind us, we'll have more time to work out a plan to bring down our deficits in a balanced way -- including by asking the wealthiest americans to pay a little more, so we can still invest in the things that make our nation strong, like education and research. so let's begin by doing what we all agree on. both parties say we should keep middle-class taxes low. the senate has already passed a bill to keep income taxes from going up on middle-class families. democrats in the house are ready to do the same thing. and if we can just get a few house republicans on board, i'll sign this bill as soon as congress sends it my way. but it's unacceptable for some republicans in congress to hold middle class tax cuts hostage simply because they refuse to let tax rates go up on the wealthiest americans. and if you agree with me, then i could use your help. let your congressman know what $2,000 means to you. give them a call. write them an email. or tweet them using the hashtag "my2k." that's my2k. you and your family have a lot riding on the outcome of this debate. we all do. and as citizens
time to work out a plan to bring down our deficits in a balanced way -- including by asking the wealthiest americans to pay a little more, so we can still invest in the things that make our nation strong, like education and research. so let's begin by doing what we all agree on. both parties say we should keep middle-class taxes low. the senate has already passed a bill to keep income taxes from going up on middle-class families. democrats in the house are ready to do the same thing. and if we can just get a few house republicans on board, i'll sign this bill as soon as congress sends it my way. but it's unacceptable for some republicans in congress to hold middle class tax cuts hostage simply because they refuse to let tax rates go up on the wealthiest americans. and if you agree with me, then i could use your help. let your congressman know what $2,000 means to you. give them a call. write them an email. or tweet them using the hashtag "my2k." that's my2k. you and your family have a lot riding on the outcome of this debate. we all do. and as citizens, we all have a say in
was in your waiting room. a member of congress was on ahead of me talking about the deficit debate. her press secretary was looking at the tweet feed as the member of congress was talking. they are literally getting a line by line they are literally giving a line by line analysis. i would say to citizens, follow your representative on facebook. it is very authentic. members of congress will look at those comments. we did a webinar during the research, and a staff member said they see 20 or 30 comments on their facebook page, and that is something they will listen to. it is such an authentic medium. you cannot take a youtube video. members of congress really enjoy the interactivity that it provides. not all members are using it, although from what i understand, only about five members of the u.s. senate are not on twitter, and 3 are retiring this year. call me crazy -- i think this twitter thing is going to catch on in congress. people are really using it. it varies in terms of how well they are using it, but we do know they are paying attention. they are looking at the facebook pages. these d
security will focus on how the national security is impacted by the deficit. mike mullen will testify along with others. later, the center for strategic international studies host a forum on u.s. relations with china in light of china's leadership transition. that is at 5:30 eastern p.m.. ♪ >> this weekend on c-span 3, follow harry truman's grandson to hiroshima as the city celebrates -- remembers the dropping of the bomb. >> everybody has their own view. i do not want to argue about the history. i think we are past that. my goal and purpose for being here is to honor the dead and listen to the living. i want to do what i can add to make sure this does not happen again. >> we will discuss meetings with a bomb survivors and the inspiration for his trip. that is on c-span 3 on sunday at 9:00 eastern. >> are reported by the group -- ring america's future members of the group, a political and business leaders, are suggesting a plan of maximizing oil and gas production, reducing consumption, and improving conservation as a way to boost revenue and reduce our debt. this is about a less -- a lit
Search Results 0 to 42 of about 43 (some duplicates have been removed)